coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bitola.
5.  On 9 November 1987 the applicant entered into an agreement with Mr  V.G. (“the defendant”) under which the latter had agreed to produce and install some furniture in the applicant's house. The applicant made an advance payment.
6.  On 12 April 1993 the applicant claimed annulment of the agreement since the defendant had not complied with it.
7.  On 1 February 1994 the applicant specified his claim and sought compensation.
8.  On 16 June 1995 the applicant lodged another compensation claim on a different ground. On the same date, the then Bitola Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) ruled partly in favour of the applicant ordering a cross-cancellation of debts (пребивање). It made no decision in respect of the applicant's compensation claim since it had not been specified. On 26 March 1996 the Bitola Court of Appeal confirmed the decision on the merits and quashed it in respect of the trial costs.
9.  After the defendant died, the first-instance court invited defendant's heirs (“the heirs”) to submit a court decision recognising them as his successors.
10.  On 10 March 1997 the applicant successfully requested removal of the judge.
11.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant further specified his claim.
12.  After one hearing being adjourned due to the applicant's absence, the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's compensation claim on 19 January 2000. This decision was confirmed on the merits by the Bitola Court of Appeal's decision of 26 October 2000. On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law of 31 March 2001. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 25 August 2003.
13.  The applicant's dismissal was annulled by a decision of the Bitola Court of Appeal of 16 October 1997. He was reinstated on 7 November 1997.
14.  On an unspecified date in 1998, the applicant brought an action against his employer claiming compensation for the unlawful dismissal.
15.  On 8 December 2000 the first-instance court ruled partly in his favour. This decision was upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court with decisions of 22 May 2001 and 13 March 2003, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 13 June 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 1 March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Pest Central District Court.
6.  On 6 January 1995 the court dissolved the marriage and placed the couple's minor child with the respondent. It regulated the child maintenance and the use of the family home. On 25 August 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
7.  In the ensuing proceedings concerning the matrimonial property, on 2 February 1999 the court gave the ownership of the commonly used flat and a weekend-house to the applicant while granting the possession of their shop to her ex-husband. It also ordered the applicant to pay the difference in value of the different properties.
8.  On appeal, on 25 March 2000 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 23 April 2002 the Supreme Court, finding that the Regional Court's decision had been in compliance with the law, upheld it. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 June 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Tekirdağ.
5.  On 27 January 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in Istanbul on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). The applicant had a forged identity card in his possession when arrested. In his police statement, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant accepted the charges against him.
6.  On 3 February 1999 he was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his pre-trial detention. In his statements before the public prosecutor and the judge, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant denied that he had been involved in the activities of an illegal organisation.
7.  On 11 February 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons. The applicant was charged with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.
8.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.
9.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616 on Conditional Release, Deferral of Procedure and Punishments was promulgated. On 18 July 2001 the Constitutional Court annulled Section 1 § 4 of this Law.
10.  Of the twenty hearings held between 30 April 1999 and 14 May 2003, six were adjourned at the applicant's request or at the request of other accused. Two hearings were adjourned at the public prosecutor's request. Seven witnesses were heard in the course of the proceedings.
11.  Between 15 May 2002 and 24 July 2002, the court awaited the enactment of a new provision to replace the annulled Section 1 § 4 of Law no. 4616.
12.  On 14 May 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.
13.  On 31 October 2003 the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation was communicated to the applicant.
14.  On 9 December 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
15.  On 28 April 2004 the applicant was served with the committal order (müddetname) concerning the execution of his sentence.
16.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant and his co-accused was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
17.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant was released.
18.  On 1 June 2005 the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) entered into force.
19.  On 14 June 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the applicant's conviction in the light of the provisions of the new Criminal Code and decided to reduce his sentence of imprisonment to six years and three months.
20.  On 14 August 2005 the judgment became final as no appeal was made.
4.  On 8 and 10 November 1993 three criminal proceedings were opened against unknown perpetrators for three thefts from motor vehicles.
5.  On 10 November 1993 the first applicant, Mr S. Rangelov, was questioned and confessed to having participated in the perpetration of the offences. On the next day, the 11th, the second applicant, Mr R. Stefanov, was also questioned and confessed. Two other individuals were also questioned.
6.  On 15 November 1993 the investigating authorities proposed to transfer the three investigation files to the prosecution authorities as it had been established that the applicants, given their confessions, and their two accomplices had been the perpetrators.
7.  There was no apparent development until 24 April 1996 when the investigating authorities proposed to the prosecution authorities to stay the first criminal proceedings. There was another period of inactivity until 23 April 1999 when the investigating authorities transformed the third criminal proceedings into a police investigation (дознание).
8.  Subsequently between 7 May 2001 and 14 May 2002 the second criminal proceedings were stayed, then resumed and joined to the third criminal proceedings; the first proceedings were also resumed and joined to the third proceedings; and two expert reports were commissioned.
9.  Between 22 October and 12 December 2002 the two applicants and their accomplices were charged with the three thefts. On 13 and 14 March 2003 the charges were amended.
10.  On 10 May 2003 an indictment was filed against the applicants and their co-accused in respect of the three thefts.
11.  At a hearing held on 19 December 2003 the Plovdiv District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants were each sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Graz.
6.  The applicant was, at the time of the events, a civil servant in a public employment relationship with the Styria Regional Government (Landesregierung). He worked at the Department for Legal Affairs (Traffic Department).
7.  On 17 May 1993 the Department for Legal Affairs (Human Resources) laid disciplinary information against the applicant.
8.  The Disciplinary Commission at the Office of the Regional Styria Government (Disziplinarkommission des Amtes der Landesregierung) decided, on 21 June 1993, to institute the main disciplinary proceedings on account of seventeen specific charges dating from December 1990 to April 1993 and suspended the applicant from his duties (Einleitungs- und Suspendierungsbeschluss).
9.  On 21 September 1994 the Disciplinary Commission decided to hold a hearing (Verhandlungsbeschluss) in the disciplinary matter against the applicant, charging him on twenty-four counts. However, in the summons for the hearing the Disciplinary Commission informed the applicant on 2 October 2005 that only counts 1 to 14 would be subject matter of the hearing.
10.  A hearing was held in presence of the applicant and his counsel on 7 December 1995 following which the Disciplinary Commission held the applicant liable in respect of ten counts of misbehaviour. It imposed a disciplinary penalty of immediate retirement with a deduction of 20% of his pension benefits. On the remaining four counts the Disciplinary Commission found no reason to take further action.
11.  On 7 November 1996 the Senior Disciplinary Board at the Office of the Styria Regional Government (Disziplinaroberkommission des Amtes der Landesregierung) on the basis of the result of an oral hearing upheld this decision with regard to six counts, but found no reason for criticism as regards the remaining four counts. As a result the disciplinary penalty was reduced by setting the deduction of the applicant's pension benefits at 15%.
12.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court on 9 January 1997. The applicant also requested the Constitutional Court to hold a public hearing.
13.  The Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospect of success on 9 June 1998 and, on 24 June 1998, remitted the case to the Administrative Court at the applicant's request.
14.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant supplemented his complaint as requested by the Administrative Court and requested again a public hearing to be held. In his complaint he argued that the Senior Disciplinary Board had not been properly composed and that there were inconsistencies as to the number of charges in the decision to institute proceedings, the decision to hold a hearing and for which he was eventually held liable. Further, the authorities had not properly gathered the evidence and had erred in its assessment.
15.  On 15 December 1999 (served on the applicant's counsel on 24 January 2000) the Administrative Court, without a hearing, dismissed the applicant's complaint as unfounded.
4.  On 18 June 1993 a car was broken into and a number of items were stolen. Shortly thereafter the police apprehended the applicants and took them to a police station. There they confessed that they had committed the offence and gave explanations on the manner in which they had acted. On the same day the victim of the offence was questioned.
5.  On 29 July 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants for the theft of the items from the car.
6.  On 21 April 1999 the preliminary investigation (предварително следствие) was transformed into a police investigation (дознание).
7.  On 3 February 2002 an expert report for assessing the value of the stolen items was commissioned.
8.  On 5 and 12 February 2002, respectively, the two applicants were charged and questioned as suspects. On 14 October 2002 they were questioned by a judge.
9.  Between February and June 2002 four witnesses were questioned.
10.  On 2 April 2003 the prosecution authorities filed an indictment with the Plovdiv District Court and on the 11th the President of the Court scheduled the first hearing for 15 January 2004.
11.  At the hearing held on 15 January 2004 the court approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicants and the prosecuting authorities and discontinued the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Shakhty, the Rostov Region.
5.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a passenger car in 1993. He paid the car's full value but never received the car.
6.  On 17 July 2002 the applicant received 31,375.48 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below). This amount equalled to 33.41% of the car value.
7. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, claiming the full monetary value of the promissory notes for purchasing of a car.
8. On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant's action, having found that the State had failed in its obligation to grant the applicant a car and had only provided a partial compensation instead. The court further held that a unilateral change of the conditions of the redemption of the commodity bonds by the State in accordance with the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 and the respective State Programme (see below) did not “comply with the constitutional principles and principles of the civil law”, because a partial payment of a car's value did not constitute a sufficient remedy of the damage caused to the bond holders. The court awarded the applicant RUB 66,693.35, that is the full car price less the amount already paid to him in July 2002, to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury.
9.  On 30 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.
10.  In June 2004 the respondent authority lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
11.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium reviewed the lower courts' judgments by way of the supervisory review proceedings and established, in particular, that the lower courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution no. 1006. The Presidium ruled as follows:
“Having regard to the substantive violation of the material law, the judicial decisions taken in the case under consideration cannot be held lawful and well-founded and should be quashed [...].”
12.  The Presidium annulled the judgment of 1 April 2003 and the appeal decision of 30 April 2003 and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant's claim in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.
5.  The applicant was in active military service between 1972 and 1998. In February 1998 while he was on leave he was refused a free plane ticket on account of the debt accrued by the Federal Ministry of Defence to the air carriers. The applicant purchased a ticket for himself expecting to be reimbursed by the employer later.
6.  After his retirement from active service, the applicant took paid leave in September 1998.
7.  Apparently, in March 1999 the military authority informed the applicant that he would not be reimbursed for the ticket he had bought in February 1998 because he was entitled to only one period of paid leave per year.
8.  It appears that in May 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings in the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the above refusal. Apparently, the District Court dismissed his claim.
9.  In June 2001 the applicant brought proceedings in the Military Court of the Yekaterinburg Garrison against two military authorities: the Urals-Tyumen regional department of the Federal Air Service and the financial department of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy military command. He claimed annulment of a 1996 contract between the Ministry of Defence and an air company, as well as a compensation in respect of pecuniary damage (426 Russian roubles, RUB) and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 300,000 in relation to the refusal of the ticket in February 1998.
10.  By a judgment of 15 March 2002 the Military Court of the Yekaterinburg Garrison dismissed the applicant's claims for failure to comply with the statutory time-limit (see paragraph 13 below). The court heard the applicant, the first defendant's representative and the second defendant's lawyer.
11.  The applicant lodged an appeal before the Military Court of the Urals Command. The court heard the applicant, a representative of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy military commander. A prosecutor was also present. At the end of the hearing, he made a statement, exercising a right conferred on him by the Civil Procedure Code 1964, in force at the material time (see paragraph 14 below). The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to comment on the above statement. On 25 April 2002 the Military Court of the Urals Command upheld the judgment on appeal. It considered that, as confirmed by the applicant, he had first learnt about the violation of his right on 27 February 1998; that his references to the contracts concluded by the State authorities had been irrelevant for his claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Magadan, the Magadan Region.
5. The applicant sued the Magadan Regional Hospital and the Magadan Town Children Hospital for medical negligence in respect of her minor son.
6.  On 28 November 2001 the Magadan Town Court of the Magadan Region awarded the applicant 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) of non‑pecuniary damages and RUB 8 for the court fee against the Magadan Regional Hospital and dismissed the claims against the Magadan Town Children Hospital as unfounded.
7.  On 22 January 2002 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The award remained unenforced.
8.  On 13 June 2002, upon the Magadan Regional Hospital's request, the Presidium of the Magadan Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the judgment of 28 November 2001, as upheld on 22 January 2002, in the part related to the award made in favour of the applicant, because the lower courts incorrectly assessed the facts of the case. The court remitted the case in that part for a fresh examination in the first instance and upheld the remainder of the lower courts' findings.
9.  On 13 January 2002 the applicant lodged a request for annulment of the judgment of 28 November 2001 in the part concerning the Magadan Town Children Hospital's liability on account of discovery of the new circumstances, i.e. evidence of the Town Hospital's liability.
10.  On 17 December 2003 the Magadan Town Court allowed her request, annulled the judgment of 28 November 2001 as amended by the ruling of 13 June 2002 in the part concerning the rejection of the applicant's claims against the Magadan Town Children Hospital and reopened the case.
11.  On the same date the Town Court partially granted the applicant's claims against both defendants and awarded her RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Regional Hospital and RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Town Children Hospital in non-pecuniary damages.
12.  On 3 February 2004 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it acquired legal force.
13.  On 24 May 2004 the Magadan Regional Hospital and on 26 October and 2 November 2004 December 2004 the Magadan Town Children Hospital each paid the non-pecuniary damages to the applicant in the amounts specified by the domestic court.
14.  The judgment debt in the amount of RUB 8 awarded for the court fee on 28 November 2001, has not been enforced. According to the Government, since 2006 the authorities have made numerous attempts to contact the applicant and pay the awarded sum, but the applicant has not provided her banking details.
4.  The applicant is a Croatian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Dubrovnik.
5.  On 25 July 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against two private individuals, seeking to be declared the owner of a flat in Dubrovnik.
6.  In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997), the Municipal Court held fourteen hearings.
7.  In the period after 5 November 1997 the Municipal Court held further sixteen hearings and on 22 November 2001 gave its judgment for the applicant.
8.  On 6 February 2002 the respondents lodged an appeal with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu). However, since it was established that one of the respondents had died in May 2004, the case was returned to the Municipal Court which, after the inheritance proceedings had been completed in February 2006, stayed the proceedings on 28 June 2006.
9.  Meanwhile, on 12 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings.
10.  After the Municipal Court established that the inheritance proceedings after the respondent who had died had ended with a final decision on 24 February 2006, the court invited his son to take over the proceedings and on 27 November 2006 again sent the case-file to the Split County Court to decide on the appeal by the respondents.
11.  On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 12,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Split County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case in the shortest time possible but no longer than ten months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 13 April 2007. The Constitutional Court found that the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the inefficiency of the Municipal Court.
12.  On 19 December 2008 the Split County Court dismissed the appeal by the respondents and upheld the first-instance judgment of 22 November 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Kryvyy Rig, Ukraine.
5.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) against a private company, his former employer, seeking the rectification of his work records, recovery of various payments, and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 17 May 2004 the District Court ordered an expert examination and suspended proceedings. The next hearing was held on 6 April 2005.
7.  On 7 June 2005 the District Court ruled in part for the applicant, ordering the company to pay him 17,237.47 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] and to rectify the applicant's work records.
8.  According to the records provided by the Government, out of seventeen hearings scheduled between 12 August 2002 and 7 June 2005, six were adjourned because of the absence, or at the request, of the defendant or his representative, and one was adjourned because of the absence of both parties.
9.  On 27 December 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in part and reduced the award to UAH 1,925[2]. On 10 February 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court.
10.  Meanwhile, the judgment given in the applicant's favour was enforced on 18 January 2007.
11  On 2 April 2008 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld the judgments of the lower courts.